Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 41 published cases where an insurer denied Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation — and they overturned the insurer 22% of the time. A denial for Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation is a starting position, not a final answer.
Conditions behind acute inpatient rehabilitation denials
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Stroke | 6 | 33.3% |
| Traumatic Brain Injury | 5 | 20% |
| Intracranial Hemorrhage | 3 | 33.3% |
| Cerebrovascular Accident | 3 | 33.3% |
Where the denial was overturned
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for acute rehabilitation services, or in the alternative, skilled nursing facility (SNF) level of care services. The records indicate that this patient has a history of diabetes mellitus type II, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. The patient was admitted to the hospital for a stroke with left-sided hemiparesis, dysarthria, and dysphagia due to an occlusion of the right posterior cerebral artery. The patient underwent a thrombectomy and the hospital stay was notable for a urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics. The patient was admitted to acute inpatient rehabilitation. The patient’s acute inpatient rehabilitation stay was notable for acute diverticulitis, and he was started on prophylactic antibiotics.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for transfer to an acute inpatient rehabilitation hospital and/or acute rehabilitation with the use of a Zero-G robotic body weight support system. This patient presents with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. Ischemic stroke is caused by arterial occlusion and is responsible for the majority of strokes. As a result of the stroke, the patient has right hemiplegia, aphasia, dysphasia, neurocognitive deficits, and mild right-side inattention. Per the documentation provided, the patient continues to have decreased mobility, deficits with balance and strength and is unable to independently complete activities of daily living. The patient has been participating in physical therapy and has demonstrated improvement.
Where the denial was upheld
Findings: The physician reviewer found that a patient has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for continued inpatient level of care services, or in the alternative, acute rehabilitation services.Admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility is intended to provide intensive rehabilitation therapy in a resource-intensive inpatient hospital environment for patients who have complex nursing and rehabilitation needs and require the medical management of a rehabilitation physician at least three days per week. Patients are expected to benefit from an inpatient stay and an interdisciplinary team approach to the delivery of rehabilitation care. This treatment plan includes ongoing treatment by physical and occupational therapies and speech-language pathology.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for acute rehabilitation from a facility accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities to treat spinal cord injury, that include the following comprehensive, interdisciplinary system integrating services: recreational therapy, participation in wheelchair sports, robotic assisted rehabilitation, rehabilitation with the Lokomat, rehabilitation with an exoskeleton, wheelchair evaluation, selection and fitting, bone loss class/education, gait analysis, respiratory training, simulated home living experience with caregiver training, transitional care between inpatient, outpatient, and wellness center, discharge plans with integration/consideration of social support and the assistance as needed/available at home, vocational re-integration programs/classes, classes on pres…
Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California outcomes — every state runs an equivalent external review, but the rates here are California’s. Excerpts are quoted verbatim from the public record and describe this treatment generally, not any individual case.
These are outcomes from California’s external review program — an independent physician panel that binds the insurer. Every state has an equivalent process, and internal appeals succeed even more often. Cite the outcome record for Acute Inpatient Rehabilitationwhen you appeal: reviewers routinely find that denials like yours didn’t hold up.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · DERIVED AGGREGATE STATISTICS ONLY · METHODOLOGY